Posted
by
Soulskill
on Thursday October 13, 2011 @03:18AM
from the yeah-but-please-don't dept.

Speaking at a panel during the WTIA TechNW conference, Valve CEO Gabe Newell had some interesting things to say about his expectations for the console business. Quoting:
"The living room is the domain of the consoles, and its ability to exist independently from the other platforms is gone, Newell said. Newell expects Apple to disrupt the living room platform with a new product that will challenge consoles, although he doesn't have any particular knowledge of that new product. 'I suspect Apple will launch a living room product that redefines people's expectations really strongly and the notion of a separate console platform will disappear,' he said.
Newell reiterated his concerns about a closed model being the 'wrong philosophical approach' but one that people will emulate because of the success of Apple and Xbox Live."

Valve have the distribution mechanism and the software library in Steam, why don't they release a reference Valve Box then?

The software/game development business probably provides better margins. Valve doesn't necessarily have the resources to throw around at console-type hardware like Microsoft and Apple do, as well. Many, from Atari and Coleco to Sega, have tried and failed. As it is for Valve, they can update software and re-deploy through Steam. A "Valve Box" would probably also require special made-to-order hardware to control manufacturing costs. Software just keeps running.

They don't have to develop console style hardware, they just need to hammer down specifications for a PC reference design... by having some reference designs with all driver updates being handled by Steam developers could target those platforms for QA and people who want as trouble free gaming as possible on the PC could just stick to a PC complying to Valve's specifications.

You are aware that there are people buy a PC rather than a console because they can upgrade ad lib and swap out the crappy graphics card for a better mode, yes?

If Valve issued something like a "required" or even just "recommended" specs sheet, they'd shoot their own foot. Because so far, it's the software maker's fault if the game doesn't run well. Then it will be Valve's. Because Valve dictated that MY rig can't handle that new game even though my PC meets the minimum specs easily. What's that you say? Tha

They may have the software library but all those windows games depend on windows. Valve would have to do something profoundly do to more than be a kiosk application on top of that and Microsoft would likely be highly uncooperative since it'd be a direct competitor with their xbox. Apple on the other hand has the whole stack and experience with hardware production and distribution. Basically it'd be repurposing something like the Mac Mini into an entertainment center, maybe with beefier graphics.

There's plenty of highly cooperative games makers already. iOS is the biggest handheld games platform.

What business model is being challenged (other than Steam)? When a developer sells a game on physical media through publishers, distributors, and shops they are making maybe 5 cents on the dollar. Through the Apple Store they get 70 cents on the dollar.

Games makers aren't challenged by Apple's model - other games distributors and stores (such as Steam) are.

Very few of them are capable of making actually good games though. Look at what's most popular in mobile gaming: small games that you can play for 5 minutes at a time. It's the world of angry birds and solitaire.

Desktop and living room games are starkly different. They are meant to be immersive, to be played for hours at a time, and to generally be of significantly higher quality awarded by a much higher budget. What mobile games try to actively do is to draw entertainment budget from such games toward smal

Very few of them are capable of making actually good games though. Look at what's most popular in mobile gaming: small games that you can play for 5 minutes at a time. It's the world of angry birds and solitaire.

Yes, the living room is reserved for such highfalutin experiences as Madden NFL '12 and Mortal Kombat vs. the DC Universe.

I work in the movie business, and I've noticed how the console games manufacturers have, in about 1/5th the time Hollywood used, turned themselves into everything that sucks about the modern entertainment industry. They either just remake a game franchise that's been proven for the last 20 years, or they just reskin the Unreal engine with 20% more zombie, and let the engineers just cran

I work in the movie business, and I've noticed how the console games manufacturers have, in about 1/5th the time Hollywood used, turned themselves into everything that sucks about the modern entertainment industry.

While I totally agree with the sentiment, I feel compelled to point out that what you and I might view as a never-ending torrent of crap from both Hollywood and most of the gaming industry, others view as a wonderful rainbow tinged cascade of entertainment.

But I'd think the most likely is to make a whole new iOS derivative. The iPhone 4S has a 1GHz dual core processor, and Apple made the graphics speed 7 times faster than the iPhone 4. They did this by making it a dual core GPU. That seems like a lot of effort on games for a phone! It makes a lot more sense if that's the platform they are intending to make a console with.

That's real cute, but IOS is a touch-based platform. How are you going to replicate that on a TV ? If Apple launches a console based on iPhone/iPad hardware, it won't be able to tap into their huge catalog of craptastic touch games, which means this hypothesized platform would be starting over from scratch.

On the other hand, apple would likely find most game makers highly uncooperative, as they are directly challenging their business models. So it's not that easy for apple either.

Eh? Apple's iOS app store guidelines are more lenient than what game makers are used to. If you want to develop for Xbox360/PS3/Wii officially (and not via Xbox Live Indie Arcade), there's a pile of requirements that just don't exist for the App Store. (separate work facilities wit locking doors - the closest would be the iPad pre-la

Because you can't use a keyboard and mouse while sitting on the sofa. And if you're not going to use a keyboard and mouse, why not just get an xbox or a ps3, who already have online distribution and large software libraries?

Because you couldn't build a gaming device and sell it cheap. Amazon's business model for the Kindle is to push themselves to the front of the ebook market, so they build cheap devices with no margins which could even make a loss, and they'd make all their money back selling ebooks. Valv

Nor can you eat a TV dinner while sitting on a sofa. Oh wait, they make tray tables for that, and the same tray tables work with a keyboard and mouse.

And if you're not going to use a keyboard and mouse, why not just get an xbox or a ps3, who already have online distribution and large software libraries?

Because Apple caters best to indie developers. Anybody can buy a devkit for $1250 ($650 for a Mac mini, $200 for an iPod touch, $100 for each of four years of a subscription to the iOS developer program). You can't even buy a devkit for Xbox 360 or PS3 unless Microsoft or Sony invites you, and not all developers even qualify to apply for an invitation.

Valve would essentially have to build a gaming PC with Windows, which would be expensive.

Keyboard and mouse on a tray table? You are obviously not an FPS player.

And Apple may cater best to indie developers, but I wasn't talking about Apple - I was replying to the gp about how Valve would be stupid to try to launch their own console. Most of valve's catalogue is either mouse-oriented and wouldn't be playable on a TV, or is available on the xbox/ps3 anyway.

Come to that though, I seriously doubt Apple would go for a keyboard and mouse either. Can you imagine their shiny adverts with a guy slouched

We can see this with the consoles, none of them can play proper PC games. Why do you think Half-Life 2 for the xbox looked far worse? And that is an OLD game.

While for most geeks the difference between a PC and a gaming PC ain't all that big, for the average consumer there is a HUGE difference. Their PC is a P4. People still use non flatscreens for screens!

A reference PC that can play games for half a decade will need to be a cutting edge machine to survive for that long. You can't just use a 200 dollar mac

Unless they're targeting a new market, ie the people who wouldn't buy a console or gaming rig, but to whom an all-in-one device like an Apple TV with beefed up gaming capabilities appeals. It doesn't need to be as fast as a gaming rig, or even old consoles. It just needs to be fast enough to run angry birds.

The point is, they don't have to beat gaming rigs or consoles, since they're targeting a different market that they already have managed to ensnare via iOS.

that's why. when did valve really innovate? I ask you, because they never innovated with engines, with faked promo vid material sure, yeah, they did.

a dedicated ui.. well. isn't fullscreening steam just that? just make the fonts bigger. but why they wouldn't tip their toes into making a valve box is that it's fucking expensive and risky to do a phantom for reals.

Exactly right... Microsoft tried to do some of this when they still were pushing PCs, but before it could get off the ground the XBOX came in. Valve is in the perfect position to launch PC reference designs and certification services, maybe offer a QA service and some kind of quality brand to "guarantee" the software runs well on the reference design and meets some basic PC development standards (ie. no hard coded aspect ratios, all buttons can be remapped, mouse AND gamepad support etc) which so often get

Its simpler than that I think. Apple TV tied into an iPad or iPhone works pretty fluently with the provided apps (not 3rd party). The example I can think of witnessing is the MLB app where you watch the game(s) but your iDevice shows stats that you can browse and interact with relating to the game.

Extend that idea to an "app" being a game and your iDevice being the controller and Apple TV being this "Mystery Box" and you suddenly have a game console.

The business model with consoles seems to be that you have to accept short term pain (in terms of near zero or even negative profit margins) in order to put out a console that's good enough that people will still be buying it years down the line, when tech advances are such that you can finally leverage the cost savings. Nintendo tried the other route - put out a much simpler console and make profit from day one, but now they're suffering as their console can't handle the games people want today, they've mi

I'm playing Dark Souls 3 on my iPad 4, and after dying 25 times against a boss I finally win. Before I can save, the battery dies.I chuck it against the wall in rage and it shatters into more pieces than my dream of ever beating that game, and it sings Daisy Bell in a synthesized Steve Jobs' voice.

Mechanical scroll wheels are old-fashioned. I have an Apple Magic Mouse (and a Wacom tablet) and while at first it was a bit hard to get used to and the high sensitivity of its touchpad is an issue with some games it does have its advantages, it just takes a while getting used to. On a related note I used to swear by my previous Wacom tablet + mouse, I loved how movement was relative to the tablet and not the mouse, the only problem was getting to work on monday morning and trying to move the mouse pointer

Page Up/Down, Next/Previous Weapon work better for me with a fixed (but adjustable) click "distance". For PvP Quake III Arena/Enemy Territory like first person shooters I personally need reload/ zoom/ next weapon on my mouse as a minimum. I've played on my neighbours Wacom tablet, and it's not big enough for my mouse sensitivity settings ( granted I need about 40 cm lateral ). Another point is that I don't want my cursor moving even 1 mm when I pick up my mouse and replace it elsewhere on the mouse pad, a

I have an Apple Magic Mouse (and a Wacom tablet) and while at first it was a bit hard to get used to and the high sensitivity of its touchpad is an issue with some games it does have its advantages, it just takes a while getting used to.

You don't play games more complicated than solitaire, do you? Otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned a touchpad in context of gaming...

What about Dawn of War, Command & Conquer, etc... hell, even I've played Battlefield on a trackpad (when desperate), and it's surprisingly not that bad; if you put up with the weirdness of it for a few minutes.

Newell reiterated his concerns about a closed model being the 'wrong philosophical approach' --- I guess that means he doesnt like the idea of this happening any more than i do then...

Also called "a market Steam doesn't have access to". So far consoles have been mostly for AAA games, while Apple has been letting almost everyone and their dog sell through the app store. If Apple makes a console that attracts a lot of smaller, independent developers who need a distribution method and steal them from the PC market then Steam will lose a lot of business. So I'm not sure his interests are so philosophical.

It's a pretty stupid complaint from Newell. iOS might be closed, but it's not as closed as the existing consoles are.

Anyone can buy a Mac, a developer license from Apple for $99 and start developing and release their stuff on the App Store - subject to obeying the App Store rules.

For the consoles - you have to pay thousands to get a developer license, and then the console company decides whether to accept you. If you're a company without a track record in games, they'll reject you. Then you need to pay thou

Yes, but the mainstream games channel is as closed as I described. iOS doesn't have any section that is closed in that way.

I hear that it's true for ALL games channels that most games make fuck-all money. Most of those titles in a games shop will not be hits, and if they aren't hits they make a loss. It's the few that are hits that make the money for the industry.

For the consoles - you have to pay thousands to get a developer license, and then the console company decides whether to accept you. If you're a company without a track record in games, they'll reject you. Then you need to pay thousands more for the developer kit.

Except for the Xbox 360, where anyone can buy a Windows PC, a developer license [msdn.com] from Microsoft for $99 and start developing and release their stuff on the Xbox Live Arcade Indie channel.

You claim that Steam DRM is worse than other DRM schemes X, Y, and Z. What are the X, Y, and Z you're thinking of, and how is Steam worse than them? For example, how is Steam worse than the DRM on Wii Shop Channel, Xbox Live Marketplace, or PlayStation Store?

Steam's DRM is way more restrictive than the DRM in any XBox/PS3/Wii Disk game

Steam allows the user to close Steam and run a game downloaded other than from Steam. The Xbox/PS3/Wii DRM does not allow the user to close the official launcher and run a game downloaded other than from the official download service. And I've read that the DRM on major-label PC disc games that don't use Steam is just as bad as Steam.

The Xbox/PS3/Wii DRM does not allow the user to close the official launcher and run a game downloaded other than from the official download service.

Thats not what DRM does. DRM attempts to prevent copying content, it is intended to prevent piracy. What you are complaining is a separate topic and has nothing to do with steam either. Of course you can quit steam and run other games, thats not a "Steam" feature, its a "Microsoft Windows" feature (same guys that make the xbox, funny.)

Can I run a game I buy from steam without having Steam running? Can I lend such a game? Can i resell it or give it away after I'm done with it?

And I've read that the DRM on major-label PC disc games that don't use Steam is just as bad as Steam.

DRM may screw the customer in terms of freedom - portability, re-saleability, etc, but whilst all the other forms of DRM tear you a new one, Steam uses plenty of lube and whispers just the right amount of sweet nothings into your ear, that you're satisfied and come back for more.

Are you twelve? If you were older, I'd expect you to remember the days of Starforce, and of having to look up secret phrases in your manual (written in yellow ink on white pages to defeat photocopying). And of course, there's Ubisoft's DRM that requires a constant internet connection, with Blizzard now planning to do the same in Diablo 3.

Steam has some of the least obtrusive DRM on the planet. Only GOG and the Humble Bundles are really better.

So long as you're called Zev, or Xev. But when it finds a cyborg body, goes crazy and starts chasing after you shouting "You're not pretty, Stanley H. Tweedle, but you're my kind of not pretty", that's when you have problems.

Where the current manufacturers, frankly, suck. Especially at marrying hardware and software. Like the phone market before iPhone. (Notice that the one competing OS was made by a software-ish company, and not any manufacturers). I don't see this problem in the console market. If anything, I don't see what apple could bring to the table there.

If there is one line of attack, perhaps it would be via Apple TV for the very casual market. You could give them their own lightweight controllers that double as remotes, and also make iPhones the controllers using their accelerometers like iPad does and an app.

It certainly won't be for the hardcore gamers, but that wouldn't really be something economical for Apple to crack nor their forte. On the upside, you could bring all the iPad games over to the TV.

Wait, I can already do that and its not exactly going to threaten a game console. If anything most of the games on the iPad feel as if I am dealing with a Readers Digest Condensed "Game". There are some involved games, one of them imported from DOS days named Ascendancy, but for most part the market is saturated with games which spam you with pay upgrades. I certainly don't want to see that model become prevalent in consoles.

Then comes hardware, Apple hasn't shown any urge to provide real gaming hardware at any level.

iPhone 4S upped the GPS to dual core, and is 7 times faster than the iPhone 4 GPU. It's debatable whether it already competes with current gen consoles (they're 5-6 years old) - Apple seems to think it does. But it does reveal Apple has ambition in the games area if it's putting that much effort into the GPU on a phone. One can certainly expect the next gen iOS chip (A6?) to be better than current gen consoles.

iOS is already the biggest handheld games system by a large margin. It's easy to imagine them bein

iOS games are mostly of the casual variety because they are targeted primarily at the iPhone. And for sure casual is what you want on a phone. Same to a lesser extent on the iPad.

Then again, Nintendo Wii didn't do too badly out of casual games...

But if the world wants more in-depth games when Apple has a TV console based on iOS, then the market will supply it. The graphics are up to it - see Infinity Blade II http://infinitybladegame.com/ [infinitybladegame.com]

Set up a box with a nice graphics card in it.Enough other components to get it to boot up.

Then have your iPhone be the HD where the games rest upon and primary CPU.

By using half of the components from your phone, they'll be able to build a cutting edge console *much* cheaper. And since they were already envisioning this sort of setup as "The computer of the future" it will give them invaluable experience towards that goal.

I was trying to figure out what was wrong with this piece of speculation and I think you've nailed it.

Look at the iPhone versus what the competition was doing - particularly at the time of release. Yeah, OK, it didn't do anything too special but compared to most of the competition, it showed real potential which Apple built upon with the App store.

Ditto the Apple TV. I must confess I've not used many set-top boxes but the ones I've seen reviewed - dear me. It's a choice between "doesn't really do anything m

Show me ONE other product from a single vendor that does Screen mirroring like Ipad/AppleTV. WiDi is a joke because intel is too fucking lazy to make a receiver puck for it, relying on third parties. ANd as far as format support goes, give it up, no one device besides a PC is going ot ever do every format people will want. Try to hit the largest targets (i.e. just encode to mp4/H.264) and be done with it. Its far easier to standardize your video type then to try and hope every future device supports your Og

I think the Apple TV project got seriously de-funded. It's now just a shadow of it's former glory. Old models were thin client PCs, new Apple TVs are just a cable box with wifi and eithernet built in. That's not to say they aren't great devices; I bought one for my mom and she loves it - but at this juncture the Apple TV is just a placeholder product.

Actually I like the new model ( I could get one for cheap) it is more or less a nice push box where you can push movies etc.. from any idevice or mac to the box.If you hack it open or use itunes, you even can make it a upnp pull/streaming device.It is not a full featured mini pc but it is a nice device nevertheless and while I dont think apple has any plans it could be a great gaming console for small to casual games. All which it lacks is a decent controller for games.

The fact remains that the new AppleTV is a far less compelling machine for hackers. The old AppleTV was a nice way to get a cheap low profile box that was generally useful. It eventually became outdated but it was very respectable for it's time. The new AppleTV is just cheap and limited and more of a bother to deal with if you are choosing to hijack the hardware for your own purposes.

Most things for the living room are closed down. Consoles are more closed than any iMac. You can't even surf the net on the 360 just so MS can ensure you don't get anything for free. Apple would have to struggle to be more closed than consoles. I can only see then releasing something more open even if it's not as open as a traditional PC.

consoles are locked down for a reason, the cost of the hardware is deeply subsidised with the expectation on making profit from the software. For Apple To create a more open platform they couldn't really afford to subsidise the hardware as you no longer have the guarenteed software sales and would therefore need to compete with a significant price disadvantage, current gen consoles retail for under $300 and when they were initially released both the ps3 and the xbox were selling at a loss. What sort of alte

That's not strictly true. Nintendo makes a profit on their hardware. The only time that wasn't the case is I believe after the price cut on the 3DS. They initially took a loss but I believe I've read they've got around that even.

The idea of selling hardware at a loss is a flawed model. It will be more so as software moves to digital. Keeping in mind retailers make little to nothing on hardware too who would want to sell the next iteration of the xbox of software only came through Live? So think consoles

If Apple is releasing a competitor to consoles then I can't see how he can complain about it being closed.It certainly can't be any more closed than the xbox which you have to go through Microsoft for everything.

You can't surf the net with a browser because you might find a free game to play on your xbox and Microsoft wants to charge you to access free services like Facebook and Twitter. You can't even buy your own hard drive. You have to buy a proprietary xbox 360 hard drive.

He didn't say Apple is closed, XBOX is open. He specifically said closed systems like Apple AND XBOX Live. How you could read that and interpret it as him saying Apple are somehow the worst, I don't know. All he's saying is that yet another closed system in the living room is a bad thing, it doesn'tnecessarily matter who makes it, he just chose Apple as they're the most likely candidate at this point (it takes a lot of money, developer backing and know-how to enter the console market - the only other big pl

From TFA"Newell expects Apple to disrupt the living room platform with a new product that will challenge consoles, although he doesn't have any particular knowledge of that new product."

So, "Hey, Apple may do something that may or may not be awesome and stuff." Then he goes off about Apple being a closed platform (XBox, PS3, & Wii aren't?), but doesn't even touch on the points that Apple has no creative partners or real console experience. Apple has no gaming leverage.

The second gen apple TV is powerful enough for basic games (and this is what is selling bulk, at the moment), has bluetooth, and is super cheap.

I predict a new generation apple TV with iPhone 4-S hardware. Selling for around 100-150 bucks, and enabling people to purchase IOS games from the app store and play them in full high-def in the living room, possibly using i-devices as a controller, or with additional blue-tooth controllers availa

Actually, Apple can afford to be a loss-leader in this market. They already have the iOS platform combined with iTune, iCloud, and the App Store. All the ground work for successfully launching a game console and tie it all together with all their other products is already there. It's quite possible that the AppleTV3 or TV4 may have enough hardware to compete against the current generation of consoles now. But honestly, they don't need that kind of hardware because they wouldn't be going up against that mark

I would love to see game developers leverage iOS devices and the Apple TV to come up with new types of games. A board game with each player on an iOS device showing their unique player screen, linked to an Apple TV showing the board/world, player stats, standing, etc.

If I'm understanding the article's quote correctly, Gabe is talking about how the iOS devices and the XBox 360 only give you the choice of only one digital distribution service, shutting out potential competitors.On computers, Steam competes with other digital gaming services, such as Direct2Drive, Desura, GoG, and so on. Later on he goes on to say how a hypothetical Valve-produced console would be "open" so that users could use Steam's competitors alongside Steam.

The console makers (Sony, MS, etc) doesn't make money on the consoles themselves for a long period of time doing their life-cycle, they get the bulk of the income from software sold on their distributions service and psychical game sales.

If they spend a huge amount of money developing the console hardware, it doesn't make sense to allow third party distribution services on their consoles.Which is also why they are locked down so tight, unauthorized thir

Steam doesn't prevent you from installing software on your PC. It even let you add your non steam game in it's library.
I'm sure a "Steam console" wouln't be locked down like a PS3 or XBox as I doubt people at Valve would enjoy playing cat and mouse with tinkerer trying to break their boxes to install homebrewed software.

And that challenges games consoles how, exactly? I hate to break it to you, but the average Gears of War player isn't just biding their time until they can get Angry Birds on the big screen. I don't know if Apple devices are capable of competing with the current gen of consoles - bearing in mind they're half a decade old, maybe so, but the bigger step is convincing developers to start producing AAA titles for the devices. Ignoring the lack of a proper gaming controller, the bigger issue here is that either

Yes, apple got lucky with their ipods, iphones & ipads. Lucky, that is all. Some maybe call it smart, visionairy, or some stupid shit like that, but it was lucky. They made products that was easy to use, looked nice, and people loved it.

Have you ever noticed that people (or companies) who design good looking products that work well and are easy to use are consistently a LOT more lucky than their competitors?

BTW, is "Vision-airy" a clever reference to the Dyson Airblade [dysonairblade.co.uk] or the Air Multiplier [dyson.co.uk] perhaps? I w

Plus it's expensive. It can't even thrive as a desktop PC in a market where people are used to spending more than they would for a console. How is a Mini going to compete in a market where something like a PS3 is considered an overpriced option?

The Mini is the perfect example of why people would choose a console over PCs for gaming. Consoles represent a cheap, well understood, and STABLE platform that does doesn't do musical